I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
Imagine being a fully sapient individual of a species capable of pondering abstract concepts like gods or magic for millenia and thinking biological determinism is not only real but a good excuse to be a piece of shit. Just sit down and ponder that for a long goddamned minute.
potatoes have 48 chromosomes. potatoes are god.
🥔 🍟 🛐Take, eat, these
fries[chips?] are the body.
Pour the [Transcription Error: The One True Condiment].
This is the blood of the covenant.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make an atonement for your souls:
For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
The funny thing is these TERFs have absolutely no idea if he has a y chromosome, nor if they have one themselves.
one time I tried telling a TERF about Swyer syndrome, aka XY gonadal dysgenesis. It's a intersex condition where the individual will have XY chromosomes and often intersex genitals, but it also presents itself in female seeming people with otherwise typical genitalia who might be unaware they have a condition. There has been at least one incident of a person with Swyer syndrome giving birth through a specially designed fertility program, despite being born with XY chromosomes.
After telling this to the TERF in question she responded. "Yeah but they aren't supposed to be born that way."
yeah ok and 1 in 100,000 people are born that way, guess they shouldn't exist.
This was in an episode of House (with very regressive gender politics)
i imagine at least 1 terf was so paranoid they had themselves tested
Terfs are extremely good at not realizing obvious things. We're talking about people who unironically believe trans women die from getting a blood transfusion from a cis woman. They're about as unhinged as flat earthers, probably moreso, you cannot expect them to be aware of the parallels between their views and other forms of reactionary ideology.
We’re talking about people who unironically believe trans women die from getting a blood transfusion from a cis woman.
Holy shit WHAT?
People just straight up don't seem to get what blood is and isnt, I've seen 4chan type reactionaries also try to mock trans people with the whole male/female blood routine and its just baffling.
You know it's just been amazing this past decade or so finding out that there is a very small but very vocal slice of people who label themselves feminists who do just straight up hate men.
Obviously it's a small group and they don't have the sorta institutionalised power to actually act in any significant way on it (and unlike say, Christian fascism the state's not gonna shrug and let em get on with it if they like either)
Past decade? How about Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949)?
This would be the same Simone de Beauvoir that was known to groom young girls for her lover Jean-Paul Sartre to abuse . She said that strength comes from devotion because otherwise she couldn't mindfuck victims into compliance.
Yeah could have made it clearer, I don't mean if one individual person has shitty views or behaviour more that for a certain group, the hatred is kinda hardwired into the ideology.
Didn't know about SdB. Read the 2nd sex tho years back and thought it had some good ideas. I really liked the point about how women in not being defined essentially can have any label (I know I am using prob the wrong terms here cos it was years ago) applied to them.
But yeah I dunno when it comes to picking out shitty behaviour alone of an individual who is influential as if it undoes or discredits the ideas they come up with. My grandad used to call ppl like that a bit like Moses. Fit to lead the people to the promised land but not fit to live there.
How can you be a feminist, in favor of women's empowerment, and then serve a man by grooming girls (your students, who trust you!) for him to sexually abuse? It's not shitty behavior like she stiffed waitresses of their tips or didn't put the lid on the garbage can. Her actions directly contradict her philosophy. She doesn't live her own life how she tells others to live. What do we call those?
Okay I think we are talking about different things here. Prob my fault as I am not always as clear as I should be. So:
-
I only really figured out in the last decade that there's a small but vocal group of feminists who are biological essentiallists (?) And who hate men.
-
This group clearly doesn't have the institutional power or influence as, for example, white supremicists or christian fundamentalists.
Following your first bit about SdB.
-
I read 2nd sex and the ideas I quite like even if I don't agree completely.
-
Someone's actions taken solely on their own aren't enough to discredit their ideas.
And yeah from what you just posted after that. I honestly haven't read up on SdB as a person, just her work as a philosopher. To me, being a hypocrite doesn't make her ideas less valid on its own.
Her personal life aside, her idea that women as a 2nd sex become objects rather than subjects and how more or less any label can be applied to them is interesting.
That isn't a justification for what she did or didn't do.
I'm also not really sure, reading back, what the link is between what I was talking about in the 1st place and SdB.
being a hypocrite doesn’t make her ideas less valid
Well, to the rest of us, it does. If you say one thing and do not just another, but precisely the opposite, then nobody has to listen to you. Practice what you preach. This is the same ground as the Christian pastors who preach tolerance and abstinence and it turns out they have five mistresses in five different states. Who cares about their message of love from Jesus? They're hypocrites!
Okay, so by valid I don't mean I'd personally take advice from her about the topic, I mean that I find her theories interesting and partially agree with them.
I mean, Kissenger's speech where he talks about every weapon being built representing labour, material and time that could be spent making roads, hospitals, schools etc. As an example.
That one idea in there is one I think a lot of people would agree with, even people who know Kissenger to be a hypocritical, evil man with the blood of millions on his hands. It doesn't mean we think that idea is nonsense, it means we think Kissinger is a hypocryte. I'm not about to wholeheartedly support building a tonne of tanks because Kissenger is a hypocrytical monster.
To be clear here I'm comparing the situation not the people.
I'd find it more curious how they justify it to themselves. More curious about Simone than Kissinger, as Kissinger has spent pretty much his entire life pursuing realpolitik and hasn't really indicated that he thinks roads, hospitals and schools are more strategically useful than tanks (or has he?).
Yeah for sure. It's the first i have heard of her grooming people so I would wonder how she squared what she wrote with how she lived.
But would you stand up in front of a group of people and say that you support Kissinger's ideas? And explain that those are divorced from Kissinger the person? Why or why not?
Kissinger aside, if I was talking about SdB's theories and so on... well firstly I'd really have to re read it cos its been ages.
Secondly I'd prob say something like what I said earlier. That SdB's ideas regarding object vs subject and the whole 'becoming something any label could be applied to' are interesting and I broadly agreed with it when I read it and still do.
I wouldn't talk about her life because beyond her being with Sartre I really don't know enough about it and I only know that second hand. I didn't read her biography or anything.
Are her ideas divorced from her as a person? Probably not, no.
Am I going to take her being a hypocryte alone as a reason to dismiss those ideas? Again, no.
I'm really not saying I am anything like an expert here, just that a) I broadly agree with some of her writing and b) someone being a hypocryte isn't enough on its own for me to dismiss their ideas.
-
I remember someone once tried to unironically post the SCUM Manifesto on here as like a satirical work, it doesnt even wait until the second page before spouting some of the vilest transphobic shit imaginable, that person got banned pretty quickly thankfully.
Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
Lmao yeah why are they infighting? Fucking dumbasses.
Similar views, but they're still opposite. A zionist and a nazi both believe that Jewish people should live in Israel, but for vastly different reasons.
The "RF" in TERF still means "radical feminist". They and Matt Walsh are natural enemies, no matter how much they might agree on trans. Remember that RFs were on the cutting edge of radical left politics up until about eight years ago when they got shoved aside. Even now, their rhetoric is "how dare you take away my privilege for being born a woman, I will not share with anyone!" There is plenty that can get Walsh and TERFs fighting with each other.
I've always seen the RF part of TERF to be optional, they always seem far more concerned about trans women than women's struggles. This is necessary of course, because if they did focus on women's struggles they would notice that trans women are a crucial part of the fight against institutional patriarchy, feminism that isn't trans inclusive is ineffective and dead in the water.
it's an interesting tension within the movement. there are the online antisocial femcels who innovate a lot of the rhetoric, tend to be more invested in their self perception as radicals, and mostly fixate on the constant trauma and suffering of existing under patriarchy, and then there are the mostly bourgeois pantsuit feminists at the NYT and BBC who just think that feminism is when a (white, cis) woman does something. the bigots contain multitudes!
Also heads up, I don't know if this has propagated much yet, but I read these freaks' tumblr blogs and a lot of them have recently adopted pseudo-marxist language of "class" to I guess seem more materialist. Like describing women and men as "classes" and saying that their aim in converting cis women (and "saving" AFAB trans people) is to spread "class consciousness." Some of them will use this rhetoric and then in the very next post describe patriarchy as a biological inevitability, so rest assured it doesn't represent any serious theoretical shift.
From your descriptions this is just another way of repackaging lib shit. Hyper online people parroting Marxist talking points without actually understanding their implications or having actually read any of the literature to understand what these words even are or refer to, and then lib economists at think tanks writing articles based off of these hyper online screeds. Basically, describing a 'class' as anything other than a 'relationship to the means of production' is very lib shit.
Hey how come "TERF" is in scare quotes but "trans ideology" isn't?
Also the term TERF is almost 15 years old.
You're right in that it's an important part of their identity, but I don't think it affects their praxis. I never hear about these types of people doing activism for real feminist causes, just mobilizing to intimidate/dox/harass trans people.
Imagine a Venn diagram with a circle labeled "RF" and a smaller circle inside labeled "TERF".
Would it be kind of like if you drew a circle labeled "Marxists" and a smaller circle labeled "Gonzaloists," since Gonzaloists claim to be marxists but never do any praxis beyond the most destructive, op-like behavior?
The issue is that these people were always 'radical' in the same way Sargon was 'liberal'. It is in their own mind with no relationship to history or the outside world.
Every class reactionary is an ouroborous, they will always attack each other. Christofascists have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than they could ever possibly admit.
